147 THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPAEDIA Anthropology mentary hypotheses. They are supposed to differ in style—the fhst "displaying clear marks of study and deliberation," the second being 3. Con- "fresh, spontaneous, primitive" (Dri- trasts ver. Genesis). They differ also in representation, i.e. in detail and order of events—the earth, in the second narrative not emerging from the waters as in the first, but dry and not fitted for the support of vegetation, and man appearing not last but first on the scene, foUowed by beasts and birds and lastly by woraan. The documents are further supposed to differ in their conception of Divine interposition and a con¬ sequent choice of words, the first employing words, like "creating," "dividing," "raaking," "setting," which imply nothing local, or sensible in the Divine nature, the second being strongly anthropomorphic -7-Jeh represented as "moulding," "placing," "taking," "buUding," etc^and moreover locally determined within limits, confined apparently to a garden as His accustoraed abode. Without foreclosing the critical question, it may be replied that the first narrative is as anthropomorphic as the second, for God is there represented as "speaking," "setting" (1 17; 2 17), "deUghting in" the work of His hands (1 31), "addressing" the Uving crea¬ tures (ver 22), and "resting" at the close (2 2). As to the home of Jeh in a Umited garden, we are expressly told, not that man was admitted to the horae of his Maker, but that Jeh specially "planted a garden" for the abode of man. The order of events may be different; but certainly the scope and the aim are not. More serious have been the objections raised on scientific grounds. The cosmogony of Gen has been disputed, and elaborate corapari- 4. Objec- sons have been made between geo- tions logical theories as to the origin of the world and the Mosaic account. 'The points at issue are supposed to be the foUowing: geology knows of no "periods" corresponding to the "days" of Gen; "vegetation" in Gen appears before animal life, geology maintains that they appear simultaneously; "fishes and bhds" in Gen preceded aU land animals; in the geological record "bhds" succeed "fishes" and are preceded by nu¬ merous species of land animals (so Driver, Gen¬ esis). To this a twofold reply has been given: (1) The account in Gen is not scientific, or intended to be so: it is a prelude to the history of huraan sin and of Divine redemption, and gives a sketch of the world's origin and the earth's preparation for man as his abode, with that one object in 'view. The starting-point of the narrative is the creation of the universe by God; the culminating point is the crea¬ tion of man in the image of God. Between these two great events certain other acts of creation in orderly sequence are presented to our view, in so far as they bear upon the great theme of sin and redemption discussed in the record. The aim is practical, not speculative; theological, not scientific. The whole creation-narrative must be judged frora that point of 'view. See Cosmogony. (2) What has struck many scientists is not so much the difference or disharmony between the Mosaic and the geologi¬ cal record, as the wonderful agreements in general outhne apart from discrepancies in detaU. Geolo¬ gists like Dana and Dawson have expressed this as clearly as Haeckel. The latter;e.g., has openly given utterance to his "just and sincere admiration of the Jewish lawgiver's grand insight into nature and his simple and natural hypothesis of creation which contrasts favorably with the confused mythology of creation current among most of the ancient nations" (History of Creation, I, 37, 38). He draws attention to the agreement between the Mosaic account, which accepts "the direct action of a constructive Creator," and the non-rahaculous theory of development, inasmuch as "the idea of separation and differentiation of the originally simple raatter and of a progressive development is to be found in "the Jewish lawgiver's" record. Latterly it has been maintained that Israel was dependent upon Babylon for its creation-narrative; but even the most serious supporters 5. Baby- of this view have had to concede that Ionian the fhst introduction of Bab myth into Origin the sacred narrative "raust remain a matter of conjecture," and that "it is incredible, that the monotheistic author of Gen 1, at whatever date he Uved, could have borrowed any detail, however slight, from the polytheistic epic of Marduk and Tiamat" (Driver, Gen, 31). The statement of Bauer in his Hebrdische Mythologie, 1802: "Es ist heut zu Tage ausser alien Zweifel gesetzt, dass die ganze Erzahlung ein Mythus ist" (It is beyond all doubt, that the whole narrative is a myth), can no longer be satisfactorily maintained; much less the assertion that we have here an intro¬ duction o'f post-exihc Bab or Pers myth into the Heb narrative (cf Van Leeuwen, Anthropologie). Whether the division of the narrative into Elo¬ histic and Jehovistic documents will stand the test of time is a question which exercises 6. Later a great many minds. Professor Eerd- Critical mans of Leyden, the present occupant Views of Kuenen's chah, has lately main¬ tained that a "thorough application of the critical theories of the school of Graf-Kuenen- Wellhausen leads to highly improbable results," and that "the present OT criticism has to reform it¬ self" (HJ, July, 1909). His own theory is worked out in his Alttestamentliche Studien, to which the reader is referred. IV. The Unity of the Race.—The solidarity of the race may be said to -be as distinctly a doctrine of science as it is of Scripture. It is 1. Its impUed in the account of the Creation SoUdarity and of the Deluge. It is strongly affirmed by St. Paul in his address to the Athenians (Acts 17 26), and is the foundation of the Bib. scheme of redemption (Jn 3 16). The huraan race in the OT is described as "sons of Adara" (Dt 32 8 AV), as derived from one pah (Gen 1 27; 3 20), as ha'ving its origin in one individual (Gen 2 18; cf 1 Cor 11 8, where woman is described as derived 'from man'). Hence the term "Adam" is applied to the race as well as to the individual (Gen 1 26; 2 5.7; 3 22.24; 5 2); while m the NT this doctrine is appUed to the history of redemption— Christ as the "second Adam" restoring what was lost in the "first Adam" (1 Cor 16 21.22.47-49). Outside of Holy Scripture various theories have been held as to the origin, antiquity and primeval condition of the human race. That 2. Various of polygenism (pluraUty of origin) Theories has found special favor, partly as co-adamitism, or descent of different races from different progenitors (Paracelsus and others), partly as pre-adamitism, or descent of dark- colored races from an ancestor who hved before Adara—the progenitor of the Jews and the hght- colored races (Zanini and esp. de la PejrrSre). But no serious attempts have yet been made to di'vide the human race among a number of separately originated ancestors. The Bib. acoount, however, has been brought into discredit by modern theories of evolution. Darwinism in itself does not favor 3. Evolu- polygenism; though raany mterpret- tionary ers of the evolutionary hypothesis View have given it that apphcation. Dar¬ win distinctly repudiates polygenism. He says: "Those naturalists who admit the principle